Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ORDAZ v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 2:14-cv-00564-MCE-KJN. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141224771 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. On February 26, 2014, Lydia Ordaz ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America"); The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS 2004-BC1 ("Mellon"); ReconTrust Company, N.A. ("ReconTrust"); and Encore Credit Corporation ("Encore") (collectively "Defendants"). ECF No. 1. On August 11, 2014, Bank of America, Mellon, and ReconTrust moved to dismiss the c
More

ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

On February 26, 2014, Lydia Ordaz ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America"); The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS 2004-BC1 ("Mellon"); ReconTrust Company, N.A. ("ReconTrust"); and Encore Credit Corporation ("Encore") (collectively "Defendants"). ECF No. 1. On August 11, 2014, Bank of America, Mellon, and ReconTrust moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 8. In violation of Eastern District Local Rule 78-230(c), Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. ECF No. 15. The Court also dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff's claims against Encore, which had neither appeared nor challenged the pleadings. Id. (citing Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-42 (9th Cir. 2008)).

On October 21, 2014, Plaintiff timely filed the operative First Amended Complaint against the same four defendants. ECF No. 16. Bank of America, Mellon, and ReconTrust again filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"), ECF No. 20, as well as a request that the Court take judicial notice of a trustee's deed upon sale, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the Motion and thus once again has violated Local Rule 78-230(c).

Because oral argument would not assist the Court, the matter was submitted on the briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the December 18, 2014, hearing was vacated. ECF No. 23. In light of Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED. Moreover, because Plaintiff twice has failed to oppose a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, her claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 18, is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer